ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2007-05 > 1178548771


From: "Jenny De Angelis" <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Christenings
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:44:43 +0200
References: <001401c78f4e$2a202800$0300a8c0@MumsComputer><011501c78fb0$c1167900$0201010a@pamzmocwe33zpr><001a01c78fc0$47330fd0$4001a8c0@Gwenda><012701c790a0$fdb4a530$0301a8c0@portable><001601c790b1$60608d60$4001a8c0@Gwenda>


Thankyou for the full explanation of the meaning of spurious, I don't have a
copy of the OED here.

I was meaning more a mixture of the two definitions from senses 1 & 3. Sense
one- a child begot or born out of wedlock, illegitimate, bastard,
adulterous, but Sense 3- coming into it where the mother might have claimed
he was the child of such and such a father, rightly or wrongly. If that
named father denied his paternity, or for some reason the claimed peternity
of the child was doubtful, then would that not make the mother's claim
spurious under the definitions of sense 3? e.g. Not true or genuiune, False,
Sham, Counterfeit, these definitions seem to agree with what I am trying to
say. The mother of an illegitimate child making a false claim to the
paternity of her child, in effect a spurious claim.

I have not seen such an entry as you say you have at Harwich where the
mother is mentioned as being spurious, we can only go by what we each have
seen in the parish registers we have viewed. I suppose a spurious mother is
possible if the father recognised his illegitimate child but does that then
mean the father wasn't sure who the mother of his child had been?

Regards
Jenny DeAngelis.
Spain.

> ***I imagine you're thinking of the definition of 'spurious' that is
> listed under sense 3 in the 'Oxford English Dictionary' (I mean, the full
> version). It reads: 'Superficially resembling or simulating, but lacking
> the genuine character or qualities of something; not true or genuine;
> false, sham, counterfeit'. However, sense 1 reads as follows: 'Of persons:
> Begot or born out of wedlock; illegitimate, bastard, adulterous'. The
> earliest recorded example of this usage is 1598, and it extends to the end
> of the nineteenth century (perhaps later, when this part of the dictionary
> has been revised).
>


This thread: